Dr. Breslin

The applicant, an intercity bus driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's return to part-time work as a mail courier demonstrated she did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's cognitive decline, photophobia, and reduced stamina rendered her unable to perform the highly responsible duties of an intercity bus driver.

Relying on the applicant's recent neurological and neuropsychological assessments, the Tribunal concluded her condition had deteriorated over time and she met the post-104 test as of September 27, 2023.

The applicant was awarded IRBs from that date onward, plus interest.

The appellant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her catastrophic impairment benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while there was no breach of procedural fairness, the Adjudicator's findings regarding the appellant's whole person impairment under Criterion 6 of the AMA Guides were unreasonable.

Specifically, the Adjudicator unreasonably dismissed evidence of double vision, peripheral neuropathy, and medication side effects.

The court quashed the decision and remitted the matter to the LAT for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she was not catastrophically impaired and denied her claims for attendant care, treatment plans, housekeeping, and costs.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of fact and law in assessing various Whole Person Impairment (WPI) ratings, including those for upper extremity, mental status, diplopia, medications, and social functioning.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no material breach of procedural fairness as the applicant had ample opportunity to present her case during the 11-day hearing.

Furthermore, the Adjudicator concluded that no errors of fact or law were made that would have resulted in a different outcome.